dismissed
H-1B
dismissed H-1B Case: Accounting
Decision Summary
The appeal was summarily dismissed because the petitioner failed to identify any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact as a basis for the appeal. The petitioner did not submit a brief or additional evidence after indicating they would, failing to meet their burden of proof.
Criteria Discussed
Specialty Occupation Beneficiary Qualifications Failure To State Basis For Appeal
Sign up free to download the original PDF
Downloaded the case? Use it in your next draft →View Full Decision Text
MATTER OF DKE- LLC APPEAL OF VERMONT SERVICE CENTER DECISION Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office DATE: MAY26,2016 PETITION: FORM I-129, PETITION FOR A NONIMMIGRANT WORKER The Petitioner, a convenience store with three employees, seeks to temporarily employ the Beneficiary as an "accountant" under the H-1 B nonimmigrant classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section IOI(a)(IS)(H)(i)(b), 8 U.S.C. Β§ 1101(a)(l5)(H)(i)(b). The H-1B program allows a U.S. employer to temporarily employ a qualified foreign worker in a position that requires both (a) the theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and (b) the attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in the specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum prerequisite for entry into the position. The Director, Vermont Service Center, deniedΒ· the pelit10n. The Director concluded that the Petitioner did not establish that (I) the proffered position qualifies as a specialty occupation in accordance with the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions, and (2) the Beneficiary qualifies for a specialty occupation position. The matter is now before us on appeal. We will summarily dismiss the appeal. I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK An officer will summarily dismiss an appeal when the Petitioner does not identify specifically any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact for the appeal. 8 C.F.R. Β§ 1 03.3(a)(1)(v). Β· II. DISCUSSION The Petitioner marked Box !(b) in Part 3 of the Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, to indicate that a brief and/or additional evidence would be submitted within 30 days of filing the appeal. However, we did not receive a brief or additional evidence within the allotted timeframe. Moreover, the Petitioner did not provide a separate statement regarding the basis of the appeal, as instructed at Part 4 of the Form I-290B. Accordingly, the record is considered complete. Upon review of the appeal, we conclude that the Petitioner has not specifically identified any erroneous conclusion of law or statement of fact as a basis for the appeal. Further, the Petitioner has made no reference or objection to the specific findings set forth in the Director's decision. Matter of DKE- LLC III. CONCLUSION The burden is on the Petitioner to show eligibility for the immigration benefit sought. Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. Β§ 1361; Matter ofOtiende, 26 I&N Dec. 127, 128 (BIA 2013). Inasmuch as the Petitioner has not specifically identified an erroneous conclusion of law or a statement of fact in this proceeding, the Petitioner has not met that burden. 1 ORDER: The appeal is summarily dismissed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. Β§ I 03.3(a)(l )(v). . Cite as Matter of DKE- LLC, ID# 18317 (AAO May 26, 20 16) 1 According to the New Hampshire State Corporate Division, the Petitioner's corporate status is "not in good standi~g." 2
Avoid the mistakes that led to this denial
MeritDraft learns from dismissed cases so your petition avoids the same pitfalls. Get arguments built on winning precedents.
Avoid This in My Petition →No credit card required. Generate your first petition draft in minutes.